What men really want...from other men
Homosexuality is caused by a lack of sufficient positive male identity, along with the desiring for the positive male identity from other men creates homosexual desires.
Homosexual men look at men differently from other men. When they look at an attractive man, what they see is related to their desired characteristics of the male identity. They want these missing male identities maybe because they lack it themselves and find it fascinating, or because they already have it and just want to mingle with other men who also share similar attributes.
When homosexual men see a handsome, sporty and muscular tanned male, with nice rich hair, these to most men, would form the epitome of the perfect male identity, they immediately feel at ease with such a person. Their mental defences to ward off unwanted threats is lowered, along with the emergence of their desires for the attributes of such a guy.
They could see such a guy as "hot" and "sexy" without realising the underlying reasons that causes such emotions to emerge.
My previous blog posts have mentioned many factors that lead to homosexual desires. And also contributing factors that bring such desires to surface, in order that one could use homosexual desires to escape from the problems of reality.
So different types of homosexuals such as the feminine or straight-acting types, could have different reasons that cause them to have homosexual desires.
The feminine types of homosexuals could feel that men with strong sense of the male identity are interesting and fascinating. And the straight-acting types could feel that other straight-acting types are similar to themselves and would be a compatible partner to be with.
So, what do homosexual men really see in other men?
Maybe in the example of a "hot" and "sexy" mascular tanned guy, they would subconsciously perceive the attributes of the strong male identity such as Strength, Courage, Health and Beauty. All these ingredients would mix together to deem a guy as "hot" and "sexy".
The attributes of a strong male identity are indeed desirable for many men. But the main difference between the pursue of these attributes would deem homosexual men different from straight or other types of men.
Homosexual men usually just want the superficial attributes of the desirable male identity. Many homosexual men go for Beauty primarily. And straight men who pursue the desirable male identity usually go for Strength, Courage, Health and sometimes Beauty.
There are many attributes of the male identity but how men go after these attributes would deem them to be vastly different from one another.
37 Comments:
What do you mean by 'straight acting'?
I know someone who 'used' to be homosexual.. but he is hunky, with huge muscles. How could that be explained?
"Straight-acting" homosexuals look, dress and behave like straight men.
Therefore how a person looks like on the exterior is not directly related to whether he is straight or homosexual.
So sorry to see that you're gay ! Hope you will come to your senses soon !
How can you let others "ram" your ars*hole?
To the idiot above me...What makes you think its about "taking it up the ass"...Grow up tool!
Gay does not mean sex!
I would really like to know what it really means to be gay. Anyone?
I think it means preferring the alternative to being with a woman. Those are fraught with underlying issues.
The term Homosexuality includes the sexual part so homosexual sex definitely has to be involved in order for a person to be deemed gay. Otherwise, guys who like each other very much are just best friends, soulmates or buddies.
okay, I get what you mean.
I think that basically, sex is just sex. So in essence, everyone is bisexual.
A 'heterosexual' guy does have a repression of sexual feelings for guys.
What differs between hetero and homo guys would be issues with the opposite sex.
The difference between a lesbian and a gay guy is that a lesbian cannot have sex with another lesbian.
Many many lesbians become bisexual. I personally have seen them couple up with guys in the end.
As for a gay guy, it's definitely intimacy issues.. and starting a family - societal roles. A gay guy is more feminine than average, and thus don't necessarily like taking the dominant role, with the woman as submissive. They thus like to take on the submissive role (be penetrated). Does this make sense?
Also, with gay marriage uncondoned by society, they can live without much responsibilities that come with coupling with a woman.
However, with the case of a MARRIED man looking for guys, I believe they either:
1. have no respect for the wife (as are all affairs)
2. enjoy the rush
3. developed feelings for the guy that turned sexual
If you put love in the equation, there's no such thing as GAY or HETEROSEXUAL. you love people, their energies, and not their sex organs. The sexual aspect (in the highest) is a manifestation of love. Otherwise, they are abusing their bodies, whether having gay or heterosexual sex.
...also, homosexuals probably enjoy the penetration and stimulation of the prostate gland. In essence, we are all bisexuals, because whatever the other has they do as well (for homosexuals).
I disagree with your view that everyone is essentially bisexual. There is a potential for anyone to turn bisexual but not everyone is essentially one.
And I also disagree with your view that heterosexual men have sexual repressions for males, along with the view that the difference between straight and gay men are due to issues with the opposite sex.
Not all gay men are feminine nor submissive.
As for married men who have affairs with other men, I believe the reasons for this are many, similar to those that causes men to turn homosexual.
And I don't believe the sexual aspect in any sexuality is a manifestation of love, but of lust.
"There is a potential for anyone to turn bisexual but not everyone is essentially one. "
Potential for anyone. What's the difference between that and being essentially bisexual? The first statement already implies a choice - the term bisexuality encompasses both choices to be gay and straight.
'disagree...difference between straight and gay men are due to issues with the opposite sex.'
then what is the difference, you think, lust?
'As for married men who have affairs with other men, I believe the reasons for this are many, similar to those that causes men to turn homosexual.'
What are they?
'And I don't believe the sexual aspect in any sexuality is a manifestation of love, but of lust.'
Well yes, i agree with this. Lust can be toward anyone.. but the difference is the action. That's what I meant by repression - most heterosexuals do experience lust for the same sex, but do not act on it.
I stated that people can potentially be bisexual and not essentially bisexual because sexuality is determined by desires.
Asexual people like children do not have sexual desires. They potentially can be sexual but not essentially so.
However, I also believe that sexuality is determined by choice.
A person who cannot control his own sexual desires does not mean he does not have a choice in influencing his own sexual desires or even to neutralise them.
An example would be a person who eats meat and a vegetarian who chooses not to eat meat because he sees the lack of ethics in killing animals for food which neutralises the desires for eating meat.
People who state that homosexuals do not have a choice in being who they are are actually accusing homosexuals of being weak-minded and ignorant to see the bigger picture of their desires.
How a person views another person would contribute to his desires for that person, sexually or non-sexually.
I believe sexual desires are there to fulfill something that is deemed lacking in a person in order for him to desire something. My past blog posts have mentioned that one of the reasons that causes homosexual desires even in married men, could be due to a person admiring another person for his manly attributes that are lacking in himself, which are conveniently turned into physical and sexual lusting. This is what Homosexuality is about.
There are people who are sexual and also singles who are non-sexual.
I feel the difference between straight and gay men is in their desires for their partners, whether they are of the same or opposite gender.
Therefore heterosexual man who have sexual desires for other men are actually bisexual, whether they act on their sexual desires or not.
So people could be termed gay, straight or bisexual virgins.
A person would only like another person, if he sees something desirable from that person.
How can desiring something physical from another person be deemed of love but of lust? Sex can never be part of Love. Why even mix the two?
'Sex can never be part of Love. Why even mix the two?'
Are you sure about that? Can you love someone and not desire sex with them?
Well I agree with your explanation of homosexuality.. and asexuality. they're all a choice.
however, your children example is inaccurate because children have not developed, and it is unfair to use them as an example.. because over time, they will turn to maturity. Asexuality, for monks, is a choice though. But it is influenced by the person's basic character and hormonal changes as well.
So people who love others would also desire sex with them?
Children are not essentially sexual that means humans are not essentially bisexual. And maturity does not mean everyone would turn sexual.
And hormones have nothing to do with a person's desires, it merely brings them out.
'And maturity does not mean everyone would turn sexual.'
If they're not sexual they can't procreate. humans are essentially procreating beings.
'So people who love others would also desire sex with them?'
In the couple sense it's a definite.
'And hormones have nothing to do with a person's desires, it merely brings them out.'
Contradiction.
Having sex organs does not automatically deem a person to be sexual with the need to procreate.
Children are non-sexual therefore humans are not essentially procreating beings although they can be.
There are no known hormones that have been proven to automatically give a person sexual desires. Sex hormones may cause some chemical bodily changes that are associated with being "horny" while the brain and body is dehydrated, the real cause for sexual desires is in the mind's perception that view some people as being desirable from others.
Information about an attractive desirable person cannot be stored in a hormone, nor a gene, nor in sex organs, but in the brain. This is what makes desires subjective to every person.
Your example using children is flawed. If you do not take into account their lifespan of development, it is missing out on the bigger picture and this argument is just the sake of an argument, which is pointless.
If you compare hetero and homo sexuals within children, then it is okay to use children as an example. However, that would border on paedophilia.
Well, the more hormones one has, the more they would exhibit the respective male/female characteristics. Being stored has nothing to do with whether it's relevant.
Okay, so what exactly is the point?
'the real cause for sexual desires is in the mind's perception that view some people as being desirable from others.'
Yes, PEOPLE. So yes, people are potentially thus essentially bisexual. You cannot be POTENTIALLY bisexual without having the ability within you.
It is not my example that is flawed but your assumption that humans are essentially sexual and bisexual creatures. Doing that would ignore the fact that even sexuality requires time to develop in a person from the child to the adult stage and that a person's sexuality can be greatly influenced during its developing stages.
We are not born to be sexual nor bisexual in day one. We are not born with fully-developed sex organs nor with sexual desires. Even sex education has to be taught to us in schools. We are not born with the knowledge.
It is a fact that humans are not essentially sexual, but essential in other areas such as the 5 senses and the mind. It is only later in puberty from the early child stage that sex organs become functional.
How much hormones a person has does not influence his or her sexuality, since we have feminine and masculine homosexuals.
If you wish to justify your own bisexuality, I suggest you come up with convincing facts instead of incredible opinions, otherwise we would just be going round in circles.
Sexuality is about sexual desires. The body can produce feelings that are pleasant and the mind could group those plesant feelings to be sexual based on society's popular opinions. Ultimately, it is up to individuals on how they group certain bodily feelings to be sexual, and to group certain people as being desirable or non-desirable, even if the majority seems to do the exact same things.
Sexuality may even be just a consequence of wide-spread sexual propaganda through the ages, just like monkey see monkey do society or peer pressure. Monkeys may even be copying what they do with females, with what they do with males. Homosexuality acts may even just be a copy of heterosexuality acts.
But humans are more advanced than that to be mere copying machines. Being easily influenced to be sexual or bisexual does not mean that one is born with sexual characteristics, it simply means one is easily influenced to think so.
A person can be born with a tail. If other people calls him a monkey and he is easily influenced by others' beliefs, then he would himself believe he is a monkey rather than what he really is.
What exactly does it mean to be born with the ability to be bisexual?
People can potentially be paedophiles but it certainly does not mean people are essentially born paedophiles.
You have to do better to come up with a convincing argument for others besides reiterating something you only want yourself to believe, and then frustrate yourself with your own illogical assumptions that people simply point out.
I cannot help anyone who cannot accept logic.
Oh please, your logic is based on your assumptions. Unfounded? Exactly. did you learn that in school? I doubt it. Pot, kettle, black?
Whatever logic you think you're using is not based on sound principles at all.
Just one example "sex education..taught in schools. we are not born with that knowledge"
Have you heard of instinct? Yes? Do animals go to school to learn how to have sex?
If you feel the need to attack my opinions, you do have to come up with proper, sound ones yourself.
It is clear that you do not have proper knowledge of behaviour nor biology.
'A person can be born with a tail. If other people calls him a monkey and he is easily influenced by others' beliefs, then he would himself believe he is a monkey rather than what he really is.'
That is more of self-esteem problems than inherently BEiNG a monkey. If lets say some genetic mixing went a little wrong, and a tail ( more likely a stump than a full monkey's tail) results, people call him a monkey? Are you talking about kindergarten talk, because a monkey cannot be born of 2 humans.
'People can potentially be paedophiles but it certainly does not mean people are essentially born paedophiles.'
Do you know that this is still debatable? If you want to propose a statement like this as fact, and then say I cannot accept logic, it is clear that you're talking about yourself, clearly frustrated with your own unfounded assumptions.
Not only me, I'm sure many other people would disagree with you comparing the biology and instincts of humans and animals.
Human are much more advanced than animals. Our brains and bodies are more complex and take longer to develop.
Nature or nurture, is a person born with his character or influenced into his character?
If a human has a great habit of lighting a cigarette, it does not mean apes or early men were surely smoking thousands of years ago. It certainly does not mean the instinct for lighting a cigarette can be stored into a person's genes. It just means he is addicted to the Nicotine, the distraction of smoking, and the pleasurable bodily responses it provides.
A human who is into habitually doing something perceived as easily likeable, does not mean he is born instinctly with the habit. He just like to do what he likes accordingly to its pleasurable bodily responses received.
If teenagers instinctively like to play computer games, it does not mean they were born instinctly to play computer games. They simply discovered computer games one day and its favourable adrenaline rush motivates the game playing into a habit.
Humans are different fron animals, we can think much better than them which is why we are the leading species on the planet.
And most humans don't just do anything that provides them with pleasurable bodily responses, they also judge the acts they do and its consequences because they have moral values.
Wait.. you're talking about nicotine.. but we're comparing basic instincts. Sex is a basic instinct, cigarettes are not. Therefore, nicotine cannot be an example. Of course, if you take manufactured substances as examples, you get HABITS. Smoking, alcohol etc is a habit. Sure, sex can be a habit, but it is basically a procreation instinct, and this need not be taught. Even if you isolate a human being from school, they will eventually want couplehood and procreation. that is their instinct, and it is intrinsic.
Your argument is not strong enough. You're using extraneous examples like computer games, and you mention humans are the leading species, but what's your point? Sure, humans are the leading species, i don't argue with that.. so are they then exempt from the basic primal urges?
I agree with your last 2 paragraphs, but they are off topic.
'And most humans don't just do anything that provides them with pleasurable bodily responses, they also judge the acts they do and its consequences because they have moral values.'
Moral values... It is a subjective topic. What exactly are morals? Some people think homosexuality or promiscuity is wrong. Does that mean those who have safe, consentual sex are commiting wrong-doing?
Sometimes, their code of morals leads to their repression of urges. Those who do something that majority of society deems wrong do so because they have rationalised to themselves that it is right.
I still do not get the point of the argument. Sure, I agreed with majority of your points in your blog: various reasons abound, and this topic is not explored properly by scientists, nor do they even comprehend to accurately grasp the human psyche. So, disagree if you wish. I am quite enjoying this debate.
Your argument states that since humans are greater than animals they need to be taught about sexual behaviour in schools before they know about it? Does it not then make us the weaker link? It makes little sense.
If Sex is a procreation instinct, then why are not all people straight so that they can procreate and have offspring?
Why do so many people use protection when they have sex if they want to have children?
Is having sex just an instinct or a form of bodily pleasure discovered by chance or influenced by peers?
There are even news reports of animals not knowing how to mate.
What has "sexual instinct" got to do with wanting couplehood and procreation? I would like to think that it is out of life's loneliness that people want companionship and children.
Your arguments are not convincing.
Humans generally need to be taught sexual behaviour because they do not "play" with other humans in the form of having so much bodily pleasure that they get their playmates pregnant just like what stray cats seem to do all the time.
Scientists have often said that life in the Universe could be an accident. Maybe someone getting pregnant with a child is also an accident caused by "playing around" recklessly. Maybe sex is just like every other form of play.
You asked why are not all people straight? Wasn't it already implied that sexuality is a choice?
They choose not to go the straight route for very many reasons. It's for the same reason as why some people are afraid of heights. It's their personality characteristics. But, inherently they can go either way.
Protection? Because, simply because the technology is there. If there are no manufactured protective aids, they would have no choice but to do without. Sure, some people choose to remain childless, but that is their choice, and their genes will end there.
Oh, by the way, you said "procreation instinct" .. I just said "basic instinct". There is a difference. There is an instinct also to eat.. why? to survive. Procreation allows survival. These are the basic instincts.
Not knowing how to mate.. sure, nobody knows how to walk when they're first born. They're either taught (which speeds up the process) or, they eventually learn. Baby deers do eventually walk. Do you think their parents show them how?
A baby will eventually walk, but it is speeded up by their parents.
Loneliness, okay, fair point. If you are taking the loneliness stance.. it is valid.. because it is a choice. Alot of people do not wish to have children, but that does not mean they are homosexual.
By the way, my arguments are not trying to convince you. If points are not taken, it's okay.
The picture you paint of humans being compared to stray cats is a bit bleak. I would think alot of them have more intelligence than that. Did you not mention that humans are superior? I would say those who indulge without thinking of the consequences are basically celebrators of the moment -- not that it is wrong, but ultimately the consequences are theirs to bear.
Play, sure, you could see it that way. I suppose that is how alot of people who indulge in sex see it.
Actually you were the one who firstly mention "procreation instinct".
"Sure, sex can be a habit, but it is basically a procreation instinct, and this need not be taught."
Sex being a "procreation instinct" does not apply to modern man.
Your points that humans know how to mate or being bisexual are naturally inborn abilities, are not logical and compatible with the facts I know. I cannot accept them.
Being bisexual of course is debateable.. but to say that having sex is not an inborn ability would be incredibly stretching.
Please re-check your facts.
"procreation instinct" does not apply to modern man?
I hope you re-read science textbooks, specifically the ones on biology, and evolution, if you must.
Farewell
Okay, i think I get your point. You are speaking with regards to the 'GAY' POV, where sex obviously has nothing to do with procreation instinct. So there you have it, case closed.
Just one question: What about lesbians?
I'm entirely curious as to whether you can back any of your assertions up e.g. that "Homosexuality is caused by a lack of sufficient male identity, along with the craving for the male identity from other men creates homosexual desires."
All I'm asking for is just one citation that's not from a religious right "research" group
And oh btw, Homosexuality in Nature
Shaun, I'm smarter than those research groups out there. They are too slow to catch up with what I know. They should be quoting me.
Humans are the leading race on Earth because they have long overcome the habits of burying their heads in the ground or eating their own shit.
If you think animals should be the role models of humans, go on and dig your own hole, eat your own shit and organise orgies among your male friends to strengthen loyalty.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Heh.
1. "I'm smarter than those research groups out there. They are too slow to catch up with what I know. They should be quoting me"?
Prove it. Demonstrate it. Why should something that's nothing more than your opinion be right or righter than a properly researched study? Because I-said-so is not a valid answer except for a crank. Or shall I simply take it then that you simply don't have a clue and are relying on discredited pop psychology and bad ones at that?
2. Humans have opposable thumbs and language. And sufficient weaponary to destroy ourselves 7 times over and we're necessarily better than animals?
But let's leave that aside and let's ignore your beating of a strawman argument
3. I think that animals are role models? Are your arms tired yet from beating strawmen? Did you even read the blog post and did you comprehend that it was saying that not only is homosexuality natural, there also seems to be an evolutionary and genetic component to it.
But even if we ignore that, presumably you don't think we should stop eating or drinking or forming social bonds because animals do so. So what's your basis for distinguishing among such acts?
Peace.
Shaun, go and screw your male friends.
Wow.. such an 'great' answer whybegay... you've proved ur point so'well'
The widening income gap is a major issue that deserves more attention! And a mrbrown show carol!
http://mrbrownnetwork.com/media/mb/tmbs-061201-the_widening_income_gap_carol.mp3
Post a Comment
<< Home